The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-08-18
REQUIREMENTS OF DENTISTS.
An Opinion from the Attorney General Re-
garding the Registration Law.

The State Board of Dental Examiners has OBJ
tanned opinion from Attorney general Mich
ener relative TO several doubtful points arising
in the disch arge of its duties toward applicants
for certificates of practice. In list of questions
sent to that officer he was asked, ''Does the act
regulating the practice of dentistry, approved
March z 1887, authorize this board, in issuing
the certificate of registration. to limit the right
to practice to one county, to be named in the
cerhfcate, or has the applicant the right to
practice in every county in this State in which he
may record his certfcate?" The Attorney gen
eral holds that the dentist who procures the GER
rificate of registration is entitled to practice in
any county in this State where he shall have
had it recorded in the Office of the recorder of
the county, in compliance with Section Of
the act mentioned. 1t is his opinion that there
is nothing in this statute which indicates any
legislative intent to limit the right to practice.
By virtue of the certificate, to any particular
county to require that certificate of regis
tration shall be obtained for each county in
which the dentist desires to practice. On the
contrary, the language of the statute is broad
and general, and contains no words OF restriction
or Limitation.
rs it necessary that more than one freebooter
shall sign and swear to the application" was the
second question.
In reply to this the Attorney general writes
that the board may require the affidavit of as
many freeholders as may be deemed proper, but
the law is satisfied by an affidavit sworn to by
freeholder.
In reply to further questions he held that a
permit. under Section of the act, gran ted by
one OF the members of the board, is temporary in
its character for that section that it ''shal
only be valid until the next meeting of said
board" This language is imperative. Section 2 of
the act authorizes the board to hold both annual
and called meetings at which the board shall ex-
anime applicants for certificates for oualifca-
ton. Those applicants to whom permits have
been granted, under Section z. may be
amined at the next meeting of the board, or at
some subsequent meeting, the board may
deem best. Ii one having such permit fails to
present himself for examination at the meeting
OF the board fixed for the examination of such
applicants, or if he shall then fail to pass sue
cessful examination. his permit becomes null
and void
Member of the board who issue such permits
have only such powers rs are conferred by the
statute creating them. AS this statute does not
give the right of cancellation to a member of the
board. il is concluded that such right does not
exist
The fifth question asked was: ga dentist
sends TO the board proper application, sworn
to by himself and two freeholders, and bring
ing the application within the terms of Section
s. Protests and counter affidavits have also
been filed with the board. in which it is stated.
among other things, that the applicant has not
been engaged in tie lawful practice of dentistry
In this State continuously, since the goth day
of May, 1879. Is it within the power of the
board to consider the protests and counter aft
davits as speaking the truth and reject the ap-
plicaton?'
Tie Attorney general is OF the opinion that
the board cannot consider the protests and
counter afidavits. The statute is mandatory
and requires the Issuance of a registration GER
tifcate to every applicant who files the affidavit
and pays the fee required by this section. When
these things are done the law specially enioins
the issuance of the certificate. That which the
law positively directs an officer to do, the law
courts will compel him to do by writ of mandate.